Back in the heyday of the Baja, I had a Subaru salesman tell me that in his experience the top buyers of that car were middle-aged people who were into gardening. They liked the small tailgate area for easy hauling and loading of big bags of mulch etc. Subaru of course marketed it to 20 year olds for extreme outdoor sports and gave it all that stupid cladding and faux-rugged decorations.

Incorrect. They threw out the 2008-2011 TRUCK Standard.

The standard introduced by the EISA (35 mpg by 2020) starts in MY2011 and has not been challenged.

It could be done with an electric or hydraulic assist. Gotta love that torque from 0 rpm!

Case-closed proof of why the Dakota could only score 1 star on its best day. Chrysler sells it that way.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-dodge-dakota-crew-cab-st-4×4/

So, -IF- you’re going to do this, it makes sense to base it off a FWD car platform (better packaging, more people room, better mileage) than a traditional truck.

This was most recently attempted with the Subaru Baja, introduced in 2003 and unceremoniously dropped in 2006. Of course, it was AWD, not FWD but it was based on a car (the Legacy Outback Wagon.) I actually thought it was a clever design based on a concept vehicle whose name escapes me. Problem is the concept vehicle had a true disappearing midgate a la the Chevy Avalanche, while the Baja made do with an “access door” between bed and cab that didn’t work as well.

In any case the Baja was only moderately promoted and was introduced at a time when gas prices were still hovering around $2/gallon and so its MPG advantages weren’t much of an asset. Furthermore the small “bed” made it more or less useless for any kind of real hauling (a problem that could have been fixed, IMO, with a true disappearing midgate that would have allowed cargo to be carried as far as the back of the front seats.)

By the time gas prices skyrocketed after Katrina in 2005, Subaru had already axed the Baja due to poor sales – one has to wonder whether it might have been a success in the era of $3-$4/gallon gas?

Having said that, there are many people (I’m one of them) who would love to have a multi-purpose vehicle that had both hauling capability and mild off-roading capability but can also be converted to carry passengers. My ‘04 Tacoma is both bigger and more capable than I really need it to be, and can only accomodate 2 adults even with the extended cab. OTOH, the 6′ bed has come in handy on many occasions and makes a good if somewhat rugged camping platform.

I think this kind of Rampage picture is a bit more appropriate:

http://www.nicksgarage.com/cars/rampage/rampage84_01.jpg

What are you blind man?

(Thanks)

Even if the NHTSA manages to keep the “footprint” standard a FWD pickup could be give a very long wheel base, the rear wheels could basically be pushed to the very rear of the truck without any drivetrain issues, and that would also give the FWD truck better traction.

All of this aside, Chrysler is a corrupt company that should be liquidated. Chrysler is basically our Ssangyong, and if South Korea can afford one automotive bankruptcy then so can we.

Does this mean small sports cars with large engines are labelled as the worst offenders?

Yes. And the more of these you have, the worse off you are.

will this lead to stretching of trucks and cars (while engine stays the same) to relatively improve the ratio?

The curves are based on the OEMs’ future product projections, which were submitted last year. If they try and game the system too much by stretching vehicles, NHTSA will certainly just change the curves.

The attribute-based standard was meant to require ALL OEMs to improve their fleets. A single standard like CA proposes would simply mean everyone would have to go smaller and lighter, and the Asian OEMs would not have to do anything. The size-based system requires improving your fleet without much downsizing. Of course, you can argue all day about the how the curves are drawn and how they might benefit one manufacturer vs. another.

Well, we also hoped that Congress knew this and would make a smarter move than this horrible CAFE regulation. I’m all for pushing for fuel savings, but that was done in such a horrid way that any doubt regarding the competence of our elected officials has now been removed. Since they lacked the stones for a fuel tax, and wanted the opportunity to do something far more convoluted in order to “justify” their salaries, here’s what we’re ending up with.

By the way, the ST8 was much heavier (built with more cabability, towing etc.) and was to come with a V8 (Pontiac, remember?). This is not ST8, the Sequel.